We decided to move to a private let after neither party was satisfied with the agent's full management service. We used the AST template provided by the NRLA for a 6 month tenancy. Under the new tenancy, the rent was reduced. At the time the new contract was signed, we as landlords were aware that the tenant was looking for a house to buy. The tenant has now purchased a house and is renovating it. At the request of the tenant, we both agreed to keep to the terms in the original contract for the tenant to provide 4 weeks notice vs. a fixed term. The tenant misjudged how much time was required for renovations and to source supplies and gave notice on our property prematurely (notice given to end of August). As we had sympathy with their situation, we agreed to extend their notice period from 4 weeks to 8 weeks (to the end of September). When they asked for a third extension, we refused. We have had this in response from our tenant:
"We took occupancy of your property by virtue of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 29th February 2020. Subsequently, you terminated the agent and another document was signed purporting to outline the terms of occupancy. We had no knowledge of these things and acted in good faith, and we didn't get advice.
We now have it on good authority that because the occupancy was not broken, i.e., we did not move out, it is actually the original contract that remains in force and legally binding, not the subsequent document that purports to outline the obligations of the parties. Furthermore, the agent failed to serve a Section 48(1) notice correctly and did not provide your address in England or Wales leaving you in a difficult position.
Notwithstanding any of the above, any requirement for possession by a landlord under any Assured Shorthold Tenancy requires that a Section 21 notice be properly served, and that notice gives 4 months to vacate at the moment.
No Section 21 has been served, so you are not entitled to possession, and you cannot commence possession proceedings until one has been served, and it has expired."
We have contacted the agent re. Section 48(1). We are unclear why the tenant is quoting section 21, as they gave notice on the property and not the other way around. We do not have a response to why the AST that was signed is only "purporting" to outline the terms of occupancy. To the best of our knowledge, it is a legal and binding document and correct. We moved from a managed let to a private let. We paid a substantial fee to break the contract with the tenants in place to the agent. The tenant signed the agreement and accepted the lower rent. When raised by the tenant, we agreed to the notice period.
As we are new landlords, we would appreciate any advice you have to give us. We have zero interest in a legal case at this point in time but we would like to respond correctly to the numerous accusations raised.
